12-1551. Issuance of writ of execution; limitation; renewal; death of judgment debtor; applicability
A. The party in whose favor a judgment is given, at any time within ten years after entry of the judgment and within ten years after any renewal of the judgment either by affidavit or by an action brought on it, may have a writ of execution or other process issued for its enforcement.
B. An execution or other process shall not be issued on a judgment after the expiration of ten years from the date of its entry unless the judgment is renewed by affidavit or process pursuant to section 12-1612 or an action is brought on it within ten years after the date of the entry of the judgment or of its renewal.
C. The court shall not issue a writ of execution after the death of the judgment debtor unless it is for the recovery of real or personal property or enforcement of a lien.
D. This section applies to:
1. All judgments that were entered on or after August 3, 2013.
2. All judgments that were entered on or before August 2, 2013 and that were renewed on or before August 2, 2018, except that a writ of execution or other process may not be issued for a judgment entered on or before August 2, 2013 that was not renewed on or before August 2, 2018.
E. This section does not apply to:
1. Criminal restitution orders entered pursuant to section 13-805.
2. Written judgments and orders for child support and spousal maintenance and to associated costs and attorney fees.
3. Civil judgments obtained by this state that are either of the following:
(a) Entered on or after September 13, 2013.
(b) Entered before September 13, 2013 and that were current and collectable under the laws applicable on September 13, 2013.
4. Judgments directing the sale of property pursuant to title 42, chapter 18, article 6.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
68
cases (
9 in the last 5 years), 1957–2025 · leading case:
Jensen v. Beirne, 386 P.3d 411 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
Jensen v. Beirne, 386 P.3d 411 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 29× “We have jurisdiction under Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (A.”
Lachter v. Smith, 101 P.3d 637 (Ariz. 2004).
· cites it 25× “4; see also A.R.S. §§ 12-1551, -1612. The Lachters then sought a determination from the bankruptcy court that they had timely renewed their judgment.”
Eans-Snoderly v. Snoderly, 473 P.3d 337 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 14× “¶5 Husband moved for summary judgment, asserting the judgment renewal limitations period in A.R.S. § 12-1551 barred Wife’s Petition because his last installment payment was due on April 30, 2011, and Wife filed the Petition after the five-year period for renewing or enforcing…”
Fid. Nat'l Fin. Inc. v. Friedman, 238 P.3d 118 (Ariz. 2010).
· cites it 13× “The “action thereon” described in § 12-1611 is plainly the same “action brought on” the judgment to which § 12-1551 refers. ¶ 13 Our post-statehood case law confirms that every judgment continues to give rise to an “action to enforce it, called an action upon a judgment.”
Associated Aviation Underwriters v. Wood, 98 P.3d 572 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 7× “We also conclude that the consent judgment entered against TAA/City and in favor of Intervenors has not expired due to their failure to timely renew it under A.”
Harle v. Williams, 438 P.3d 699 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 16× “¶6 The trial court correctly found that the Settlement Agreement's covenant not to execute on the judgment tolled the statute of limitations set forth in A.R.S. § 12-1551. According to the record, the parties agreed that Harle would not execute on the judgment so long as…”
Westberry v. Reynolds, 653 P.2d 379 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 14× “The father further argues that the trial court erred in refusing to apply the provisions of A.R.S. § 12-1551 as a valid defense to support payments that were delinquent for over five years after they were due and payable.”
Chudzinski v. Chudzinski, 546 P.2d 1139 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1976).
· cites it 18× “This amount necessarily included arrearages becoming due more than five years preceding the filing of the petition.”
Harding v. Sutherlin, 584 P.2d 1184 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 16× “00 of the arrearages sought by Joan were barred from enforcement by the provisions of A.R.S. § 12-1551. At this time A.R.S. § 12-1551 stated in part: 2 “A.”
Johnson v. Johnson, 988 P.2d 621 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 14× “The many Arizona cases in which the rule has been applied in the past happen to be cases construing the applicability of A.R.S. § 12-1551 to installment payments in judgments pertaining to monthly support orders.”
Hall v. World Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 943 P.2d 855 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 5× “” A.R.S. § 12-1551(A) (1994). Thus, Hall properly renewed his judgment by filing this lawsuit before expiration of the *503 five-year period.”
Fid. Nat'l Fin., Inc. v. Friedman, 855 F. Supp. 2d 948 (D. Ariz. 2012).
· cites it 9× “328-^4) at 4:11-12 (emphasis added). So, when calculating the time for filing a renewal affidavit under that statute, the Friedmans use November 14, 2002 — Fidelity’s original registration date.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1551(8) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1551(A) — 13 cases
Lachter v. Smith, 101 P.3d 637 (Ariz. 2004).
“4; see also A.R.S. §§ 12-1551, -1612. The Lachters then sought a determination from the bankruptcy court that they had timely renewed their judgment.”
Hall v. World Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 943 P.2d 855 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997).
“” A.R.S. § 12-1551(A) (1994). Thus, Hall properly renewed his judgment by filing this lawsuit before expiration of the *503 five-year period.”
Fid. Nat'l Fin., Inc. v. Friedman, 855 F. Supp. 2d 948 (D. Ariz. 2012).
“328-^4) at 4:11-12 (emphasis added). So, when calculating the time for filing a renewal affidavit under that statute, the Friedmans use November 14, 2002 — Fidelity’s original registration date.”
Harle v. Williams, 438 P.3d 699 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
“¶6 The trial court correctly found that the Settlement Agreement's covenant not to execute on the judgment tolled the statute of limitations set forth in A.R.S. § 12-1551. According to the record, the parties agreed that Harle would not execute on the judgment so long as…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1551(B) — 21 cases
Johnson v. Johnson, 988 P.2d 621 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
“The many Arizona cases in which the rule has been applied in the past happen to be cases construing the applicability of A.R.S. § 12-1551 to installment payments in judgments pertaining to monthly support orders.”
Fid. Nat'l Fin. Inc. v. Friedman, 238 P.3d 118 (Ariz. 2010).
“The “action thereon” described in § 12-1611 is plainly the same “action brought on” the judgment to which § 12-1551 refers. ¶ 13 Our post-statehood case law confirms that every judgment continues to give rise to an “action to enforce it, called an action upon a judgment.”
Harle v. Williams, 438 P.3d 699 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
“¶6 The trial court correctly found that the Settlement Agreement's covenant not to execute on the judgment tolled the statute of limitations set forth in A.R.S. § 12-1551. According to the record, the parties agreed that Harle would not execute on the judgment so long as…”
Fid. Nat'l Fin., Inc. v. Friedman, 855 F. Supp. 2d 948 (D. Ariz. 2012).
“328-^4) at 4:11-12 (emphasis added). So, when calculating the time for filing a renewal affidavit under that statute, the Friedmans use November 14, 2002 — Fidelity’s original registration date.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1551(C) — 1 case
Hall v. World Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 943 P.2d 855 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997).
“” A.R.S. § 12-1551(A) (1994). Thus, Hall properly renewed his judgment by filing this lawsuit before expiration of the *503 five-year period.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1551(D) — 3 cases
Johnson v. Johnson, 988 P.2d 621 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
“The many Arizona cases in which the rule has been applied in the past happen to be cases construing the applicability of A.R.S. § 12-1551 to installment payments in judgments pertaining to monthly support orders.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1551(b) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.